Credit Dave Meltzer, Wrestling Observer NewsletterJeff Jarrett/TNA Update
Jarrett is going to be involved in TNA storylines beyond the Slammiversary show. The company presented Jarrett with an idea about five days ago. No word on the specifics involved beyond that.

Credit Dave Meltzer, Wrestling Observer RadioErick Rowan Update
Rowan suffered a torn bicep at a house show match against Cesaro on 6/19 in Saginaw, MI. He is expected to be out of action for a minimum of four months.

Credit Dave Meltzer, Wrestling Observer Newsletter
Also, head on over to Place to be Nation for their NBA Draft Coverage. Click on the links below to listen to the NBA Draft Preview Podcast with Andrew Riche and Adam Murray:

Mania X - Bret's career ends due to bad concussions years after the showMania XX - Something concussion related happens years after the showMania XXX - Bryan might retire due to concussions a year after the show

Meltzer said he heard some speculation it will lead to a Global Force Wrestling invasion but heard nothing definite about that then was talking about who they would even get to lead an invasion. GFW roster is weak

What would be the point of a GFW invasion? They don't have much of anyone, and if they get the TNA side to defect (by offering them Golden Corral coupons instead of Pizza Hut like they get now), there's no one on TNA to be taken seriously, aside from EC3, which would probably be the only way to get it over.

And not only that, but concussions are cumulative. Remember, Bryan's arm/neck problems were the result of years of wear and tear that he never got diagnosed or treated. This could easily be the same thing.

Neither situation is good for the talent involved. Jarrett can't get a TV deal, TNA is going to get thrown out of theirs, talent is underpaid (if at all) and morale might be at a point where Zack Ryder feels good about himself.

It's nuts - between the concussion, the cumulative effects of his working style in ROH and everywhere else, and the fact that the guy does apparently have nerve damage, it's amazing he hasn't broken apart yet, let alone wrestled.

I didn't see it either, but from reports he looked okay and is still in decent shape. I saw his match with Heath Slater and he looked fine in that. Sure it's not the same Vader as in 1992, but if he can still hit his signature spots then there's nothing wrong with trotting him out for nostalgia.

Isn't like half the GFW roster ex-TNA guys?Even if not, I just don't see how you do anything involving the two companies that doesn't end up making at least one of them look bad. GFW has put on, what--two shows? They barely exist beyond on paper. A rivalry or invasion between the two companies simply means nothing. TNA is itself a dying company: its name, talent, very involvement can do nothing to help Jarrett launch GFW. The only plus anyone gets out of this is Jarrett getting to hype GFW on cable TV. Best case miracle scenario would be GFW "taking over" TNA and somehow convincing Destination America to not cancel them and seek improved ad rates because they're no longer that nasty TNA wrestling. Imagining that somehow worked, what then? Wrestling fans would just see it all as a name change. It'd still be the same company they were watching die before. It's still mostly the same talent they've been seeing for years, with most of the big names still gone.

I really don't think there's much to this beyond Jarrett just being brought in to work some dates, and to spark speculation like above. There's just nothing to it, and the more that there may be to it, the less that there actually is to it--if you get my meaning.

I think it had more to do with the fact people were spreading rumors about massive TNA news and some big names returning, then we get Vader, who with all due respect hasn't been relevant in almost 20 years.

I don't know, I don't see a problem with it. If Vader had come back and won the TNA title then I can understand people hating on it, but if you want to bring a past legend for a one time gig then Vader's a good choice. The guy did get a very good reaction from his match with Heath.

LaMarcus Aldridge to the Lakers is now said to be a strong possibility, based on who LA drafts. Do you still draft Okafor if you've already got Randle and Aldridge has quietly given you the word that he's signing?

And somebody that didn't read the Observer during that time since there were a lot of reports of Vader doing great there. I don't really watch Japanese wrestling either, but I read enough to see what's roughly going on over there.

He's a free agent, so signing him doesn't cost anything other than $$$. I'd definitely do it because Aldridge can carry the load. Towns/Okafor + Randle isn't going to be able to do that for 4+ years at minimum. Aldridge + Kobe would be a good combo of how to prepare for the NBA.

I think it's typical TNA. Put them out of the spotlight and under the radar, they quietly make good television. Give them a live show, they convince themselves they have to bring back Vader! Bring back JJ! And it's back to same old TNA.

Were this any team but the Lakers I'd be sketchy about their trying to rebuild on the fly, but for some reason athletes love that trash city. I'd be really worried about that guard situation, and loading up front vs. spending the cap on the frontcourt. They'll find someone, I'd bet.

I'm actually more concerned with the back court and the wings as well. There's no good answer unless LeBron does something crazy. Wade would be a massive mistake, although the entertainment value would be through the roof.

Since 95 when he got to the WWF, he was always just boring and average. Fine wrester and all, just totally uninteresting. Sort of like Randy Orton, only he wasn't pushed for 13 years despite having no semblance of a personality at all.

I have a hard time getting into any wrestler for whom the best you can say is "they can still go." I might be interested in Jarrett if he was some young guy's asshole manager, but I'm just not going to get worked up at the idea of him in a match. Just like Jericho or Triple H.

Even you hadn't seen his All Japan work from 1999-2000 surely you would have read about it in the Apter mags. And even if you had seen his WWF work from 1998, surely you would have known how dominate Vader was in WCW just by being a wrestling fan.

So Jose Aldo doesn't have a fractured rib, but it it (and the cartilledge) is bruised. He's going to try to fight in two weeks anyway, and Chad Mendes is on standby to step in and fight McGregor for an interim title.

Also of note: Aldo has pulled out of more fights than he has fought in the UFC. Might be worth looking into whether his camp at Nova Unao knows what the fuck they're doing, considering it's the same camp that let Barao faint and hit his head while trying to cut weight for a fight.

I'm glad everyone is siding with WWE on this, but it is their job to determine if Bryan had a concussion or not. Bryan is not at fault for continuing to work through it.

The NFL has been going through this for years. You cannot trust the athlete to properly diagnose himself.

The fact they lied about it for months makes it even worse. They KNEW what happened and lied to fans. Something is very amiss here and the WWE is in full cover their ass mode. Daniel Bryan is going to be getting a shit ton of money soon.

What prompts one to be a Nets fan? I can only think of real long time fans that go back to the 70s that live in LI and were pumped to have a pro team. in NJ in the 70-90s everyone liked the Knicks. The Nets were just sort of around

Jarrett can work and has had a lot of great matches and is able to carry guys too. His style might be a little slow and safe, but you could argue that more people should adopt that style because I think Jarrett has been injury free for most of his career.

What are you talking about? Where, in anything I wrote, did you conclude that I didn't see him in WCW? All I said was he looked washed up in 98, which lead you to believe I'm some sort of teenybopper millennial.

The far right of their base would cheer them, while the more moderate middle road people would roast them for killing healthcare for millions. It's more valuable to them as something they can loudly complain about but not actually stop.

>So while your legion of fans may be into it, for those of us reading for the first time it comes across as petty.

So, while several people like to read what I write (especially the first time), it doesn't impress YOU, so I need to...what, change it so it's more to your liking while abandoning things that others enjoy? You do see the logical fallacy here, right?

>I'm not a PC champion but derogatory gay-bashing humour stopped being funny long ago.

We love and champion the homosexual community. Danielle and I both have gay friends and our comments did not bash homosexuals.

And, yes, I'm a feminist.

>As for this "Danielle" stuff...unfunny, pointless and wholly unbelievable.

You and, like, two other people beat this into the ground.

You don't think it's funny. Others do.The point of Danielle is to inject another perspective, so that would make it NOT pointless.And I'm not sure why it's "wholly unbelievable" unless you're insinuating that she doesn't exist -- in which case, you can always friend me on Facebook and see the hundreds of photos of us...but that's cool.

>So, while several people like to read what I write (especially the first time), it doesn't impress YOU, so I need to...what, change it so it's more to your liking while abandoning things that others enjoy? You do see the logical fallacy here, right?

I don't at all. It's not like this comment is the first to take umbrage with snark snark snark and more unfunny snark style of recapping, just like everyone took issue with your RAW recaps.

>We love and champion the homosexual community. Danielle and I both have gay friends and our comments did not bash homosexuals.

Some of my best friends are gay.

>As for this "Danielle" stuff...unfunny, pointless and wholly unbelievable.

I don't think I've ever found anything Danielle says to be insightful, informative or humorous. It seems like others agree.

>You don't think it's funny. Others do.

Yourself and Danielle's family?

>The point of Danielle is to inject another perspective, so that would make it NOT pointless.

Yes, but if she has nothing to say (spoiler alert: She doesn't), it is pointless.

Guess you ought to stay away from our Diva recaps then, I'm the main voice for that one and Matt makes side comments. No need to put my name in quotes either, I exist, that's a photo of both of us, taken last weekend as my avatar.

Much like any other reality show contest, the judges will help lead the viewers in the direction they want them to vote. That's the whole point of the judges being there. It's the same on American Idol, Dancing With the Stars, and any of the other shows that leave the voting up to the fans.

And the edited packages they show are also going to be used to lead the voters and the judges to feel a certain way and make certain assumptions of the contestants.

It's not always going to work out in the favor of the judges or the producers. Which is why they add a judges save element. So if the fans really screw up the judges can save a person that they (or the WWE) really wants to keep.

But all in all I really think the WWE wants to sign the guy that the most people get behind.

I'm of the belief that WWE is in the interest of swaying the vote as much as they can. And I don't think actually saying "fuck it" and declaring a winner themselves is out of the question because, seriously, who would ever know?

You sit there and repeat the same shit like a zombie and you talk trash and act like a complete dick -- then, when somebody slings it right back to you, you take umbrage and you act like a victim and say stupid shit like "you can't take criticism!"

You're just a troll. You start fights. Like saying "WHY DOES MATT COVER STUFF WHEN HE HATES IT" to absolutely no one. And nobody responded.

And when two people had to explain to you the "voting" system and also said they enjoyed me ripping this to shreds (along with several others who agreed with me that this show was DOA) because you just wouldn't shut the fuck up.

I mean when are you gonna realize that nobody fucking cares but you, you doorknob?

I mean, even the most mentally-challenged individual would be able to figure that out. But, no. You keep coming here to antagonize and then you whine like an idiot when anyone fights back. You're like a kid whose parents tell you not to run up an escalator while the stairs are moving down -- and then when you fall and hurt yourself, you scream bloody murder.

If you weren't a true member of NPP, you've certainly earned your stripes as of 48 hours ago when you shit all over this forum.

>You sit there and repeat the same shit like a zombie and you talk trash and act like a complete dick -- then, when somebody slings it right back to you, you take umbrage and you act like a victim and say stupid shit like "you can't take criticism!"

Not true in the slightest, but getting things right seems to be one of your major issues.

You can't take criticism, as evidenced by you acting like a dick when the above person criticized you and how you acted in the spring when people started to turn on you.

>Like saying "WHY DOES MATT COVER STUFF WHEN HE HATES IT" to absolutely no one. And nobody responded.

It's a fair question especially since your explanation changed from I like it (no you don't) to I'm scheduled and obligated to.

And you seem to enjoy responding. So that's great!

>And when two people had to explain to you the "voting" system and also said they enjoyed me ripping this to shreds (along with several others who agreed with me that this show was DOA) because you just wouldn't shut the fuck up.

Huh? I explained to you how voting has generally worked in WWE and that it's surprisingly more legitimate than people give them credit for.

You also continue to miss the point about whether Tough Enough was good or bad. Just like you continued to miss the point when you kept whining NO BAYLESS HATES RAW TOO WAHHHH

>I mean when are you gonna realize that nobody fucking cares but you, you doorknob?

You absolutely seem to care. One day you're going to realize that you're terrible at recapping, you're not funny and that Danielle's "contributions" are as worthless as those hours you spent watching TV you don't like.

>I mean, even the most mentally-challenged individual would be able to figure that out. But, no. You keep coming here to antagonize and then you whine like an idiot when anyone fights back.

You're the one who has been whining over and over because they can't take criticism and really can't accept that their style doesn't work when their snark is not entertaining or funny.

> You're like a kid whose parents tell you not to run up an escalator while the stairs are moving down -- and then when you fall and hurt yourself, you scream bloody murder.

Nope, this one didn't work. Nice try.

>If you weren't a true member of NPP, you've certainly earned your stripes as of 48 hours ago when you shit all over this forum.

Your unwillingness to accept an answer I have repeated since day one is all too telling of your real interests.

I've said that I have a writing schedule and I said that I enjoy wrestling.

To sit there and tell me that I think differently just because you want to argue the fact and then project your own hostile attitude and act like an asshole in an attempt to posture and save face isn't my problem. It's yours.

I wrote something you hate. I get it. You've made that abundantly clear.

I don't care. I will continue writing -- just as I have since the first time a bunch of people told me I wasn't going to last here -- and that was a year ago before Scott gave me the RAW recap.

And you'll just continue to be the guy who hates people, projecting your own hate onto others just because you disagree with them.

>Your unwillingness to accept an answer I have repeated since day one is all too telling of your real interests.

I think a lot of people don't buy your explanations that you "like" the programming given your rampant negativity overall. I still don't know exactly what you like about Total Divas or Tough Enough.

>To sit there and tell me that I think differently just because you want to argue the fact and then project your own hostile attitude and act like an asshole in an attempt to posture and save face isn't my problem. It's yours.

Or I could just read what you've written. But ugh, who wants to do that?

>I wrote something you hate. I get it. You've made that abundantly clear.

Yes, and it seemed like there were others who didn't want ALL SNARK ALL THE TIME EVERYTHING IS AWFUL in their recaps. Your RAW recaps involved you glossing over stuff at times just to get to the snark which renders any attempts you had at actual analysis moot.

>I don't care. I will continue writing -- just as I have since the first time a bunch of people told me I wasn't going to last here -- and that was a year ago before Scott gave me the RAW recap.

I think the best thing the site did was added Bayless' RAW Rundown. And yes, I know, Bayless is also negative about RAW at times. Thank you for pointing that out.

>I think a lot of people don't buy your explanations that you "like" the programming given your rampant negativity overall. I still don't know exactly what you like about Total Divas or Tough Enough.

Once again: your unwillingness to accept an explanation isn't my issue. If you wish to be stubborn and rage against facts because you're arguing to argue, that's your choice.

>Yes, and it seemed like there were others who didn't want ALL SNARK ALL THE TIME EVERYTHING IS AWFUL in their recaps. Your RAW recaps involved you glossing over stuff at times just to get to the snark which renders any attempts you had at actual analysis moot.

Then don't read it. I don't see any other solution for you.

>I think the best thing the site did was added Bayless' RAW Rundown.

I think so, too. In fact, I publicly asked Bayless to take over (it's on one of the threads) because I can't watch RAW until 8PM due to my time zone and the readers would probably appreciate a more level approach. Bayless told me that he didn't want to because he wanted "two perspectives" on RAW and that it didn't matter what time I posted as long as it was close. I have nothing but respect for Bayless.

>And yes, I know, Bayless is also negative about RAW at times. Thank you for pointing that out.

Yep. He is. In fact, I've seen him give * to *1/2 to just about every match in the last four weeks.

>Once again: your unwillingness to accept an explanation isn't my issue. If you wish to be stubborn and rage against facts because you're arguing to argue, that's your choice.

Because your explanation is bullshit and has already changed. It also shows hypocrisy when your main argument to your (numerous) critics if is you don't like it, read it, but here are you watching WWE programming that you clearly dislike each week all so you can snark it up!

>Then don't read it. I don't see any other solution for you.

Then don't watch Tough Enough, Total Divas or RAW. And I didn't read the recap. Saw the opening paragraph, rolled my eyes and went into the comments.

>Yep. He is. In fact, I've seen him give * to *1/2 to just about every match in the last four weeks.

And you continue to miss the point. No big surprise, of course. He did give ***1/4 to the fun Sheamus v. Reigns power match and I'm glad he was able to appreciate it for what it was, shitty ending aside.

>Because your explanation is bullshit and has already changed. It also shows hypocrisy when your main argument to your (numerous) critics if is you don't like it, read it, but here are you watching WWE programming that you clearly dislike each week all so you can snark it up!